IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v8y2021i1d10.1057_s41599-021-00756-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance

Author

Listed:
  • Peter D. Gluckman

    (University of Auckland)

  • Anne Bardsley

    (University of Auckland)

  • Matthias Kaiser

    (University of Bergen)

Abstract

This article analyses the conceptual framework of brokerage at the science–policy interface as an important boundary function to support trusted and transparent government decision-making. Policymaking involves a broad range of considerations, but science advice and evidence is critical to help inform decisions. However, mechanisms for requesting and receiving advice from the scientific community are not straightforward, considering that the knowledge needed generally spans multiple disciplines of the natural and social sciences. Once evidence has been appropriately synthesized, there remains the need to ensure an effective and unbiased translation to the policy and political community. The concept of knowledge brokerage revolves around an understanding of the ontologies, cultures and languages of both the policy community and the science community, in order to effectively link the two bidirectionally. In practical terms, this means ensuring that the information needs of the former are understood, and that the type and form of information offered by the latter aligns with those needs. Ideally, knowledge brokers act at the interface between researchers/experts and decision-makers to present evidence in a way that informs policy options but does not determine policy development. Conceptually, negotiating this interface involves acknowledging that values are embedded in the scientific process and evidentiary synthesis, and in particular, in considering the inferential risks inherent in making evidence claims. Brokers are faced with navigating complex policy dynamics and balancing information asymmetries between research providers and users. Building on the conceptual analysis and examination of the nuances of brokerage observed in practice, we propose a set of guidelines to translate the concepts of brokerage to practical application.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter D. Gluckman & Anne Bardsley & Matthias Kaiser, 2021. "Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00756-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00756-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-021-00756-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-021-00756-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lene Topp & David Mair & Laura Smillie & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Correction: Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-1, December.
    2. Sheila Jasanoff, 2003. "(No?) Accounting for expertise," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 157-162, June.
    3. Lene Topp & David Mair & Laura Smillie & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Oecd, 2015. "Scientific Advice for Policy Making: The Role and Responsibility of Expert Bodies and Individual Scientists," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 21, OECD Publishing.
    5. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    6. -, 2020. "Education in the time of COVID-19," Coediciones, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 45905 edited by Eclac.
    7. repec:ecr:col016:45905 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Peter Gluckman, 2014. "Policy: The art of science advice to government," Nature, Nature, vol. 507(7491), pages 163-165, March.
    9. Dietram A. Scheufele & Nicole M. Krause, 2019. "Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(16), pages 7662-7669, April.
    10. Sofia Dias & Alex J. Sutton & A. E. Ades & Nicky J. Welton, 2013. "Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 2," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 607-617, July.
    11. Lin Zhang & Wenjing Zhao & Beibei Sun & Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2020. "How scientific research reacts to international public health emergencies: a global analysis of response patterns," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 747-773, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Falko T. Buschke & Christine Estreguil & Lucia Mancini & Fabrice Mathieux & Hugh Eva & Luca Battistella & Stephen Peedell, 2023. "Digital Storytelling Through the European Commission’s Africa Knowledge Platform to Bridge the Science-Policy Interface for Raw Materials," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 1141-1154, June.
    2. Murray A. Rudd, 2022. "100 Important Questions about Bitcoin’s Energy Use and ESG Impacts," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Susana Sobral & Fronika Wit & Rita Carrilho & Dora Cabete & António Barbosa & Filipa Vala, 2024. "Navigating complexity: looking at the potential contribution of a boundary organisation in Portugal to evidence-informed policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Ilias Krystallis & Sarah Jasim, 2023. "Charting the path towards a long-term knowledge brokerage function: an ecosystems view," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Nancy Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Flavia Donadelli, 2023. "A computational approach to study the gap and barriers between science and policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 15-29.
    6. Matthias Kaiser & Tatjana Buklijas & Peter Gluckman, 2021. "Models and numbers: Representing the world or imposing order?," Papers 2104.00029, arXiv.org.
    7. Farshad Amiraslani & Andrew Cooper, 2022. "Learning from the Past: Lessons from the First United Nations Report on Problems of the Human-Environment," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13, September.
    8. Cooper, Adam C.G. & Lioté, Laurent & Colomer, Chloé, 2023. "We need to talk about engineering policy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Heilmann, Tom, 2025. "Wissenschaft-Praxis-Transfer in der deutschen Sozialpolitik: Erwartungen von Forschenden und Praxisakteuren," IAQ-Report 2025-02, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Work, Skills and Training (IAQ).
    10. Christoph von Hagke & Chloe Hill & Angela Hof & Thomas Rinder & Andreas Lang & Jan Christian Habel, 2022. "Learning from the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis to Overcome the Global Environmental Crisis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-8, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bruen, Carlos & Brugha, Ruairi, 2020. "“We’re not there to protect ourselves, we’re there to talk about workforce planning”: A qualitative study of policy dialogues as a mechanism to inform medical workforce planning," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(7), pages 736-742.
    2. Jessica H. Phoenix & Lucy G. Atkinson & Hannah Baker, 2019. "Creating and communicating social research for policymakers in government," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Sokolovska, Nataliia & Fecher, Benedikt & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Communication on the Science-Policy Interface: An Overview of Conceptual Models," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(4).
    4. Yuliya Frolova & Suad A. Alwaely & Olga Nikishina, 2021. "Knowledge Management in Entrepreneurship Education as the Basis for Creative Business Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, January.
    5. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.
    7. Kathryn Oliver & Paul Cairney, 2019. "The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. repec:sae:envval:v:12:y:2003:i:2:p:195-224 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Konstantinos Katsanos & Panagiotis Kitrou & Stavros Spiliopoulos & Ioannis Maroulis & Theodore Petsas & Dimitris Karnabatidis, 2017. "Comparative effectiveness of different transarterial embolization therapies alone or in combination with local ablative or adjuvant systemic treatments for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A net," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-31, September.
    10. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    11. Felix A Achana & Alex J Sutton & Denise Kendrick & Persephone Wynn & Ben Young & David R Jones & Stephanie J Hubbard & Nicola J Cooper, 2015. "The Effectiveness of Different Interventions to Promote Poison Prevention Behaviours in Households with Children: A Network Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
    12. Amith Khandakar & Muhammad E. H. Chowdhury & Md. Saifuddin Khalid & Nizar Zorba, 2022. "Case Study of Multi-Course Project-Based Learning and Online Assessment in Electrical Engineering Courses during COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, April.
    13. David M. Phillippo & Sofia Dias & A. E. Ades & Mark Belger & Alan Brnabic & Alexander Schacht & Daniel Saure & Zbigniew Kadziola & Nicky J. Welton, 2020. "Multilevel network meta‐regression for population‐adjusted treatment comparisons," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(3), pages 1189-1210, June.
    14. O’Connor John, 2022. "Strengthening the science–policy interface in Ireland," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 70(4), pages 29-52, December.
    15. Alfonso Infante-Moro & Juan C. Infante-Moro & Julia Gallardo-Pérez & Francisco J. Martínez-López, 2022. "Key Factors in the Implementation of E-Proctoring in the Spanish University System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Yicong Ye & Hongzhi Xie & Yong Zeng & Xiliang Zhao & Zhuang Tian & Shuyang Zhang, 2014. "Optimal Oral Antithrombotic Regimes for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Network Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-8, March.
    17. Amy A. Quark & Rachel Lienesch, 2017. "Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 645-661, September.
    18. James N. Druckman, 2022. "Threats to Science: Politicization, Misinformation, and Inequalities," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 8-24, March.
    19. Xuhao Shao & Ao Li & Chuansheng Chen & Elizabeth F. Loftus & Bi Zhu, 2023. "Cross-stage neural pattern similarity in the hippocampus predicts false memory derived from post-event inaccurate information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Fábio Grigoletto & Fernanda Antunes de Oliveira & Caio Caradi Momesso & Ibrahim Kamel Rodrigues Nehemy & João Emílio de Almeida Junior & Vinícius de Avelar São Pedro & Roberto Greco & Mário Aquino Alv, 2023. "Technological Affordance and the Realities of Citizen Science Projects Developed in Challenging Territories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, April.
    21. Haas, Peter M., 2018. "Preserving the epistemic authority of science in world politics," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2018-105, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00756-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.